IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i11p1053-d665653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acidification Effects on In Situ Ammonia Emissions and Cereal Yields Depending on Slurry Type and Application Method

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Wagner

    (Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University of Luneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany)

  • Tavs Nyord

    (Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Finlandsgade 12, Aarhus University, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Annette Vibeke Vestergaard

    (SEGES, Agro Food Park 15, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Sasha Daniel Hafner

    (Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Finlandsgade 12, Aarhus University, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Andreas Siegfried Pacholski

    (Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University of Luneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany
    Thuenen Institute of Climate Smart Agriculture, Bundesallee 65, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany)

Abstract

Field application of organic slurries contributes considerably to emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ) which causes sever environmental damage and can result in lower nitrogen (N) fertilizer efficiency. In recent years, field acidification systems have been introduced to reduce such NH 3 emissions. However, combined field data on ammonia emissions and N use efficiency of acidified slurries, in particular by practical acidification systems, are scarce. Here, we present for the first time a simultaneous in situ assessment of the effects of acidification of five different organic slurries with a commercial acidifications system combined with different application techniques. The analysis was performed in randomized plot trials in winter wheat and spring barley after two applications to each crop (before tillering and after flag leave emergence) in year 2014 in Denmark. Slurry types included cattle slurry, mink slurry, pig slurry, anaerobic digestate, and the liquid phase of anaerobic digestate. Tested application techniques were trail hose application with and without slurry acidification in winter wheat and slurry injection and incorporation compared to trail hose application with and without acidification in spring barley. Slurries were applied on 9 m × 9 m plots separated by buffer areas of the same dimension. Ammonia emission was determined by a combination of semi-quantitative acid traps scaled by absolute emissions obtained from Draeger Tube Method dynamic chamber measurements. Experimental results were analysed by mixed effects models and HSD post hoc test ( p < 0.05). Significant and almost quantitative NH 3 emission reduction compared to trail hose application was observed in the barley trial by slurry incorporation of acidified slurry (89% reduction) and closed slot injection (96% reduction), while incorporation alone decreased emissions by 60%. In the two applications to winter wheat, compared to trail hose application of non-acidified slurry, acidification reduced NH 3 emissions by 61% and 67% in cattle slurry, in anaerobic digestate by 45% and 57% and liquid phase of anaerobic digestate by 58%, respectively. Similar effects but on a lower emission level were observed in mink slurry, while acidification showed almost no effect in pig slurry. Acidifying animal manure with a commercial system was confirmed to consistently reduce NH 3 emissions of most slurry types, and emission reductions were similar as from experimental acidification systems. However, failure to reduce ammonia emissions in pig slurry hint to technical limitations of such systems. Winter wheat and spring barley yields were only partly significantly increased by use of ammonia emission mitigation measures, while there were significant positive effects on apparent nitrogen use efficiency (+17–28%). The assessment of the agronomic effects of acidification requires further investigations.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Wagner & Tavs Nyord & Annette Vibeke Vestergaard & Sasha Daniel Hafner & Andreas Siegfried Pacholski, 2021. "Acidification Effects on In Situ Ammonia Emissions and Cereal Yields Depending on Slurry Type and Application Method," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1053-:d:665653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1053/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1053/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giuseppe Maglione & Gaetano De Tommaso & Mauro Iuliano & Giulia Costanzo & Ermenegilda Vitale & Carmen Arena & Luca Vitale, 2021. "Aerated Buffalo Slurry Improves Spinach Plant Growth and Mitigates CO 2 and N 2 O Emissions from Soil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arejacy Antonio Silva & Mário Carvalho & João Coutinho & Ernesto Vasconcelos & David Fangueiro, 2022. "Dairy Slurry Application to Stubble-Covered Soil: A Study on Sustainable Alternatives to Minimize Gaseous Emissions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Nils Carsten Thomas Ellersiek & Hans-Werner Olfs, . "Lessons learnt from the use of passive samplers to measure ammonia emissions in multi-plot experiments," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 0.
    3. Martin ten Huf & Hans-Werner Olfs, 2023. "Evaluation of the Dynamic Tube Method for Measuring Ammonia Emissions after Liquid Manure Application," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1053-:d:665653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.